Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000530ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 30, 2000 Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 4:40 p.m. after the Growth Management Commission meeting on Stillwater. City commissioners present were Bob Blaich, Roger Hunt, Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson and Charles Vresilovic. Jasmine Tygre, Steven Buettow and Tim Mooney were excused. City staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Nick Lelack, Community Development, Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked the height limitation of the Bell Mountain Townhouses; he stated that the two towers looked over 30 feet tall. Joyce Ohlson replied that she would check into the PUD approvals. Roger Hunt stated that he was shocked to see the MAA housing because they were less attractive than he had ever imagined. He voiced concern for the noise standards not being met since the top floors of the units were above the massive berm. Roger Haneman and Ron Erickson stated that the Highway would also be raised another 8 feet. Bob Blaich said that P&Z had a clear definition of the height of the berm; he asked that the height be checked. Ohlson asked if P&Z wanted to take a tour, the commissioners agreed. Haneman said that there was a completion date of June 1 st, which won't be met. Erickson asked about the newspaper article regardin the re-opening of Old Stage Road. He said that this was important to any development that happens in the area with Burlingame, MAA housing and re-alignment of Owl Creek Road. Blaich responded that P&Z was not in favor of re-opening Old Stage Road (as it existed) but rather making an intersection. Haneman said the worst possible situation will now be placed there with two 3-way intersections if not re-routed. Erickson stated that this was right where Highway 82 went from four lanes to two lanes to exacerbate the problems. Ohlson noted there was an information item from Chris Bendon regarding long- range planning. She asked for a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission to sit on the Civic Center Master Plan Advisory Committee and 1 to 2 members for the In-fill Development Rights Program. Ohlson noted that Roger Haneman worked on the Aspen/Mass design competition and Ron Erickson worked on Wagner Park. She also noted a special work session with staff on June 8th. Nick Lelack reported on the HPC decision regarding the Explorer Booksellers parking requirement; HPC determined a fraction of a space was required as a result of the increase to the net leaseable area and waived the fees. Lelack set up a site visit and grand tour for the Aspen Highlands Village next week. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 30, 2000 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: HOLY CROSS ENERGY - REZONING TO R-30/PUD & CONSOLIDATED PUD Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated for the record an affidavit of notice was provided and met the jurisdictional requirements. Nick Lelack stated the public hearing was to consider Resolution #25, 2000 for rezoning the Holy Cross property located down hill from the Castle Creek bridge where Barnard Court runs next to it. Lelack said there were 2 trails that currently traverse through the property. Leland said that Trial # 1, extends along Highway 82 connecting Cemetery Lane, Barnard Park and Barnard Park Court, under the bridge to the Marlot property. He said that Trail #2 branches out down to Power Plant Road, which separates the property into two. These trails are revocable, at any time, because of a signed agreement in 1974 between Holy Cross and Pitkin County. The city wanted to preserve at lease one of the trails, the PUD includes a non-revocable easement in perpetuity. Lelack noted that the property was split zoned. The down slope portion of the property from Power Plant Road above the city shop was extremely steep with dense mature native vegetation. Above Power Plant Road, below Castle Creek Road, the property was zoned conservation. The request for rezoning was because the minimum lot size in the conservation zone district was 10 acres and this property was 0.75 acres. Lelack said that the only portion for development was above Power Plant Road to establish the best possible building site. He explained that if the parcel were left in the conservation zone district, a 5,000 square foot house could have been built with Board of Adjustment set back approvals. Lelack said the R-30 zoning allowed 30,000 square foot lots and this lot was 34,456 square feet. He said that the lower portion of the property would be zoned conservation to restrict any and all development. Lelack stated the PUD established a building envelope and other dimensional requirements for the property. He said that the applicant agreed to reduce the FAR to 3200 square feet. He said this site was not an ideal site for a home but they have designed the best possible house. Lelack said that in a addition to the non-revocable Trail, the City would grant a public utility easement to Holy Cross and in return for that easement, the applicant 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 30, 2000 would rebuild the entirety of the Trail. There would be a condition of approval that the Trail was built to the specifications of the Parks Department. Alan Richman, planner for applicant, stated that staff did an excellent job and the applicant was comfortable with the conditions of approval. He introduced Bob Gardner, Holy Cross. Gardner provided background history of Holy Cross from the time when they purchased the rights to provide service in 1953 from Mountain Utilities to when they sold those rights to the City of Aspen in 1956. Gardner said that the building that was where the Aspen Art Museum now sits was given to the City of Aspen as part of a franchisee agreement along with the Castle Creek Bridge property where the city shop now sits. He continued that in 1974 Pitkin County requested that the Holy Cross Board agree to a perpetual and non-exclusive trail easement through this particular parcel so that school children could go under the bridge to cross under the highway. Gardner said after Holy Cross reviewed their assets about a year ago, they asked the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and adjacent property owners if they would be interested in purchasing this upper parcel. He said there was no interest shown in purchase, so Holy Cross engaged Alan Richman to develop a plan to build a single family resience on this property. Richman said the issues of concern for this property were the protection of those trails for access under the highway and the neighbors' views. Richman said that the property was originally zoned R-30 in the 1960's. He noted maps in the city clerks office were wonderful for tracing the zoning history in this community from the 1960's and 1970's. Richman said that the part below Power Plant Road was rezoned Public sometime in the 1990's; the upper portion of the parcel was included in this rezoning without notification to Holy Cross. He said that, after reviewing the city shop's file, he felt that an error had been made in the mapping or the legal description because a portion of that upper parcel on the map showed the part right up to Power Plant Road zoned as Public. He said that because of a tax exemption there was no name on the city tax records associated with the Holy Cross portion of the parcel; they were aware of a possible problem with zoning. He said they were aware of a setback problem and therefore a rezoning request was applied for with a PUD. Richman stated that they were before P&Z to establish an envelope with this property that made sense so the public doesn't have to go through the expense of buying a trail. He said the PUD process doesn't change the property from allowing one detached residence to be built on the property. Richman noted that the 3581 square footage on the house size was correct with a 25' setback from Highway 82 and met the two-thirds (16.75') setback off of Power 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 30, 2000 Plant Road. He said that there were no variances proposed from the code requirements. Richman said the building envelope was a commitment at 7,000 square feet, which means that over 25,000 square feet outside of the envelope will not be developed and have a deed-restriction or conservation easement attached to it. He said the driveway location, the agreement to provide the trail easements, the retaining wall easement and the rebuilding of the trail were all firm commitments. David Brown, architect, explained that the design was preliminary with heights, landscaping and massing. Richman stated that they were aware that if the design did not meet the Design Review Criteria, it would come back to this committee. Roger Haneman asked why the zoning was determined at R-30 instead of R-15. Richman answered that there was no reason to place the threat of a duplex with an R- 15 zone district. King Woodward, public asked how many of the basic neighbors where notified and how many responded. Richman answered the requirements were a 300 foot radius around the property; he noted that they met with Erin Fernandez, the neighbor immediately above the property and she seemed comfortable with the plan. King Woodward said that he felt that many people were not aware that this was not public land but property by was owned Holy Cross. Lelack responded that the neighbors (Bob Camp) that did contact him had concerns about the 3500 square feet of floor area available for that site, but did not express opposition. Woodward stated that this sounded like one of those projects that you hear about and the next thing there was a hole in the ground. Woodward said that then people would come out and ask why they werren't they notified or informed about it. Richman noted that this review process still went to City Council with more public hearings. Klm Kaelin, public, stated that she lived on West Francis Street in a duplex. She said that when they purchased, they were given reliance that this parcel was Conservation because it had required setbacks, trail and utility easements. She expressed concerns for the trail use, open space, landscaping and lighting on this parcel. Kaelin asked Lelack if the Parks Department had a completed report. Lelack replied that Parks supported the trail and that the applicant would rebuild it. David Hoefer stated in response to the conservation setbacks and not allowing a house to be built, there was recent court of appeals case out of Steamboat where a similar situation occurred. Hoefer said that the court basically ruled that a building envelope had to be provided and that use could not be taken away. Hoefer noted that was based on current law, which would not be a valid argument for this board. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 30, 2000 Patrice Conyers, public, stated that she lived across the river from this property and voiced concerns about the City taking out all the trees on the other side of the river from the last construction project when the city shop wqas rebuilt. Conyers said now they can hear and see all of the city shop activity clearly and asked why the boulder wall was constructed. She also asked why the boulder wall was talked about as part of this property and not the open space that would impact the neighborhood visually with the bike path and public usage. Gardner replied that the underground utility was placed under the roadway about 7 or 8 years ago and as part of the process with the City of Aspen was to build that boulder retaining wall. Richman responded that this was the only appropriate area to develop on the property. Conyers stated that she felt it was a reach to encompass the whole parcel and only say that you would develop this piece of the property; she asked what the square footage was of that developable piece. Richman stated that the triangle was 7300 square feet; the entire side above Power Plant Road was larger but most of the site was in that building envelope. Richman stated that there were 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in Power Plant Road. Richman said that at the time of building permit the owner would comply with the code on the ADU by either building an ADU as part of the total square footage, pay the cash-in-lieu or deed-restriction. Richman noted this was a very tight site. Lelack stated that parking could not be stacked so another car could not be placed on site for an ADU. Hal Clarks, public, stated that he was on the Holy Cross Board and wore another hat because he was the county planner in 1974. He said that he was the one who pleaded with Holy Cross for the access easement under the highway for children to cross safely because this was only temporary and an interim measure until the Entry to Aspen was completed. He said that access was an emergency safety issue for the children and this has gone on for 25 years. Clarke stated that in response to King Woodward, he had hoped that a combination of the adjacent resident property owners along with city and county open space funds could purchase the property. He said that just did not happen because open space did not feel it was a high priority. Erickson stated that the proposal was done well but since they were not the developers of the property, there would have to be restrictions placed upon the property in terms of landscaping and ADU. He said the developer might not have the same sense of altruism for the community. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 30, 2000 Roger Hunt stated that the story poles were shocking. He noted that even as magnanimous as Holy Cross was on the space, he felt that the 3200 square feet was still too big for a house to be built on this site. Hunt asked how the physical size of the building could be downsized to more appropriately fit the piece of property. Hoefer stated that these were areas that the city did not have any authority to change the FAR; the applicant was legally entitled to the FAR set forth. Hunt stated that then he had to vote against the project because it was inappropriate for the property. Charlie Vresilovic noted that the new lighting code would apply to this project. Vresilovic stated that the portion of the trail that was being eliminated did not make sense, it was a wasted trail. He said that the portion of the trail that they are talking about redoing the grading and rebuilding does need to be done. He said the lighting needs to be redone in that area also because it was a very dangerous area. He agreed with Ron on what happens when the next guy bought it. Vresilovic voiced concern about the height standards. Richman stated that anything over what was proposed would need a variance. Roger Haneman agreed with Ron and Charles. He said that he was counting on the over all massing and secondary mass of the property be kept in prespective. Bob Blaich said that the price of the land would dictate what the new owner would place in terms of FAR on the property. He said that there was a significant design problem and David Brown did his homework with a generic design. Blaich noted concerns for the lighting inside the house, which wasn't necessarily controllable. He said this was a unique property and trusted the planning staff to make good judgements but he said that he would like to see this unique property come back to P&Z. Blaich said that because there would be a new developer as owner of the property. Hoefer noted that coming back to staff and P&Z also allowed the public another opportunity for input. Lelack stated that would be a condition. Hunt said that he did not find it compatible with criteria F, G, Al, A2, and B 1. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z Resolution/425, Series of 2000, recommending City Council approval rezoning the Holy Cross Energy Association parcel to R-30/PUD and creating a site specific PUD with conditions set forth by Community Development with additions and changes to conditions concerning landscaping, employee housing and architectural review, finding the review criteria have been met. Roger Haneman second. Roll cai vote: Vresilovic yes; Haneman yes; Hunt no; Erickson yes; Blaich yes. APPROVED 4-1. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 30, 2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 2 HOLY CROSS ENERGY - REZONING TO R-30/PUD & CONSOLIDATED PUD ....................................... 2